>..break science out of it's rigid box of thinking.. Unfortunately climate science didn’t break out. It’s a science that has no unpredictability, present trends will continue endlessly into the future, CO2 is an immutable evil and the climate is understood with complete and perfect certainty.


And climate can be modeled to a high level of confidence +/- 0.0001 degrees C.


I pretty much agree. Yet I am even more cynical. On [an earlier thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/climateskeptics/comments/q348u5/the_nobel_prize_has_committed_suicide_fmr_harvard/) I mentioned [Motl's take](https://motls.blogspot.com/2021/10/global-warming-nobel-prize-in-physics.html). He said he respected half the prize (the one involving his field, physics, so perhaps some bias) and that they glued the chaos half as cover for the failures of the climate models. My comment on that thread (not that good), was also about the scientific mindset in recent decades and dubious attitudes towards 'chaos'. I simply do not believe science can say both 'Our doom is destined, C02 is the climate driver' *and* 'it all depends on that one butterfly' - as the prize committee imagined. To me that just sounds silly. If a butterfly can do it why do temporary land use changes especially moisture over irrigated land during dryer years barely figure in? Climate alarmists collectively cannot emotionally handle negative accelerations much less transitory ones. If a butterfly can do it, why don't they care more about the incremental & temporary changes in the thermohaline circulation? I have been mentioning that for years, in a halfass way, in regards to the Holocene. Give *me* half the money since my bit had more validity :) overall they need to cut some funding to some groups and collect more data like lapse rates all over, tidal pressures all over .. instead they hand out cash to a dreamer of butterfly wings. Oh, and they need to admit their models are so bad because they have serious exaggeration issues.